Skip to main content

Out of court settlement during ongoing Insolvency Process?

In Vivek Bansal Vs Burda Druck India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., in a recent judgment the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that a company could exit an ongoing insolvency process even as an interim resolution professional had been appointed and a moratorium imposed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the adjudicating authority, that is the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) triggering the debate over the best option for banks and other creditors to recover their dues-a resolution monitored by the court, or an out-of-court settlement with lenders.

In the judgment, a bench headed by acting chairperson Justice Bansi Lal Bhat noted that since the operational creditor (who had taken the company to NCLT) and the corporate debtor had “amicably settled the dispute”, it allowed the parties to exit the CIRP.

The tribunal decided that as the parties have reached the settlement and the ‘Committee of Creditors’ was not constituted, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, the impugned order dated 27th May, 2020 passed in ‘C.P. No. IB 2223 (ND)/2019’ was set aside and allowed exit from the ‘corporate insolvency resolution process’ which is permissible in terms of the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.’ – (2019) 4 SCC 17). The matter is accordingly disposed of in terms of the ‘Settlement Agreement’ between the parties.

The latest move by the NCLAT paves the way for companies to settle claims and end ongoing insolvency cases. The ‘corporate debtors’ in such cases can thus arrive at a settlement with the lenders, even after initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the IBC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more